Interestingly enough Lhuyd writes:
pazuârdhak ‘fourteen’ AB: 134c
pemdhak ‘fifteen’ AB: 135a
huettag ‘sixteen’ AB: 147b
seitag ‘seventeen’ AB: 148c
eitag ‘eighteen’ AB: 105b
<pemdhak> is probably an error on Lhuyd's part, since Welsh has <pymtheg> with <th> not <dd>.
If we follow Lhuyd closely, should we not in the revived language writes the following?:
peswardhek
pymthek
wheteg
seyteg
eteg.
And if we derogate from Lhuyd's evidence here, why not with final <dh>?
Lhuyd's use of <dh> is quite often mistaken. For example he writes kyuedh 'companion' AB: 49a, which should
be kyueth (cf. i.e. coweth, cf. cowethas) and kydhman 'companion' AB: 151b. This is Tregear's cothman 'friend' and is from ME cuthman 'kithman, relative, friend'.
Incidentally the only modern Cornish spelling of 'lord' in Lhuyd seems to be <arleth> AB: 55b.
Does the SWF spell this arleth or arloth? If not, why not? Do SWF users here claim that Lhuyd got it wrong?
And if so, why are they so reluctant to admit that he may have been mistaken elsewhere?
Nicholas
On 2010 Du 20, at 12:27, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2010, at 11:38, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
>>>> “In fact it did not. Then, it ignores that further study of the texts led to a shift before the second edition (1995 recall) and that further study has made the position much clearer. Moreover Nicholas has actually published many examples of this, as did he and I on one of our AHG submissions.
>>>>>> It is odd that you berate Nicholas for having changed his mind.”
>>>>>>> I didn’t berate him for changing his mind! Not at all! I pointed it out! I said he once held a similar position to the one I hold now, so this position can hardly be considered radical or otherwise unreasonable. That’s all I wanted to express. I never, and I mean never berate people for changing their mind. Being able to change one’s mind shows an open mind, willing to listen to and act on reasoned argument.
>> Try it, then.
>> You want to treat the dh/th differently from the way that v/f and b/p and d/t and g/k are treated; this is illogical and unsystematic. And, to my mind, given the lists of attestations Nicholas has provided, counter to the evidence of the texts, pace Lhuyd, whose inconsistency is explained without difficulty.
>> I have listened to your argument, and I understand your Hand/Hände analogy. That orthographic feature isn't a part of the regular orthographic conventions used in the Revived language, however: For the other stops and fricatives, Cornish uses a Hant/Hende model. Making it a special case because Lhuyd's Welsh interfered with his Cornish and because Ken George Cymricized Cornish in 1987 is not a sufficient reason to spell -dh in final unstressed syllables. The evidence suggests that such segments were [əθ] not [əð] and accordingly I oppose the Hand/Hände model. Not least because regardless of the rule you propose, people will end up voicing it even in final unstressed position. And since we believe that the evidence suggests that this was wrong, we oppose writing -dh in in final unstressed position.
>> And we did before, during, and after the AHG. Writing -dh will lead to undesirable pronunciation error, and we do not support that.
>> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
>Spellyans at kernowek.net>http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20101120/1a4c972f/attachment-0001.html>